A highly energized and self motivated individual with over 18 years of Government Project and Senior Federal Program management expertise, leading multiple teams and initiatives. Extremely proficient in reviewing and selecting research proposals. Highly experienced in developing and supporting research and development efforts as well as global technology transfer for the federal government. Assigned, directed, and evaluated individuals and team members work assignments.
Ensured work accomplishment resulting in schedules and milestones being met. Created the first strategic plan to be utilized by the office. Coordinated industry partner participation by developing statements of work, specific task orders, deliverable schedules and payment structures. Conducted scientific and engineering analyses to determine the technical feasibility of project proposals. As Contracting Officer's Representative, explained master contracting principles to senior-level Russian delegations that resulted in over 50 Russian institutes signing a master contracting agreement with DOE.
Lead and implemented a program wide self-assessment for the Office of Nuclear Nonproliferation to determine and evaluate organizational weaknesses and strengths, improve management-employee relations, address employee concerns, and identify areas for organizational improvement as the Diversity Council Chairperson. Managed multi-organizational industry benchmarking project resulting in the implementation of organizational diversity best practices. Managed proposal review and selection processes including: Established teams of diverse skills for the purpose of strategic plan development covering science, technology, and international safeguards.
Provided leadership to teams developing program specific strategic plans and technology roadmaps. Representative to interagency, intergovernmental, and international working groups. Led research, development, and technology evaluation efforts in support of International Atomic Energy Agency and the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
Are Budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget? During the Programming Phase, budget and resources trade-offs and decisions are evaluated based on the impact to annual and long-term performance measures.
Program and financial performance for each measure is corporately monitored and assessed during the Execution and Evaluation Phase. The program has devoted significant efforts to correct strategic planning deficiencies.
A Proliferation Detection Strategic Plan was developed in If applicable, does the program assess and compare the potential benefits of efforts within the program and if relevant to other efforts in other programs that have similar goals? Every effort has been made to work with other organizations to ensure program efforts with similar goals are coordinated through a wide variety of interagency working groups.
Does the program use a prioritization process to guide budget requests and funding decisions? NA has rated this category as "No" because of a lack of evidence of a documented process.
- Ongoing Program Improvement Plans.
- Historical Dictionary of Postwar German Literature (Historical Dictionaries of Literature and the Arts);
- Similar Resumes.
Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance? The program regularly collects timely and credible performance information. Performance is reviewed quarterly and annually to correct systematic project management deficiencies.
The program receives monthly financial reporting from each project. This information is used to determine whether corrective action is necessary. Federal managers review official DOE accounting data monthly as a check on contractor reports. Are Federal managers and program partners including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?
- Celtic Influences in the North of Spain and the Roots of Heresy!
- Final Warning: Because the Hour of His Judgement has Come?
Federal program and project managers are responsible and accountable for the specific goals of the programs becasuse there are elements in there performance appraisals that are linked to the NNSA Strategic Plan and goals. The National Laboratories and other performers are held to project milestones and deliverables. Their prior performance is one of the elements used by the program to assess future funding for proposals.
Are funds Federal and partners' obligated in a timely manner and spent for the intended purpose? Program funds are clearly identified for individual projects through work authorizations when they are obligated. Strict project selection and review procedures, as well as rigorous implementation oversight, ensure that project funds are used in accordance with program objectives.
In recent years, continuing resolutions have created challenges to early obligation of funds. Does the program have procedures e.
The program is assigning itself a "No" in this area because of the lack of specific written procedures to measure the efficiencies. All contracts, financial assistance, and grants are sent through the NNSA service center which implements all appropriate regulations and policies appropriate to each vehicle. Formal interagency coordination mechanisms include: The program uses strong financial management practices outlined in DOE's financial management policies, procedures, and practices that meet all statutory requirements. DOE provides accounting services to the program and they are free of any material internal control weaknesses.
The DOE's financial statements have been given a clean audit opinion in 8 of the last 9 years. The program's managers' review accounting reports monthly to monitor obligations and costs for all projects and sites. Meaningful steps have been taken by the program during the last two years, including instituting independent peer reviews, updating or completing program element strategic plans, and developing outcome-based performance metrics.
The program has hired additional staff and continues to regularly self-review the program to identify areas for improvement. Independent reviews provide assments to program managers concerning project risk, potential alternative approaches, and complimentary research efforts. Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term performance goals?
Completed Program Improvement Plans
Our measurement methods have recently been significanlty revised to to be process orientated rather than output based. We are curently on track to demonstrate: We are also on track for: The program has consistently achieved its annual performance targets. Throughout the year, NA program and project managers rate and document performance in terms of annual performance goals. Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving program goals each year?
The program has been flat-funded over the last decade. Over time, efficiency has improved in the program through the higher quality of its nonproliferation monitoring products achieved at the same annual cost. The program is assigning itself a "Small Extent" in this area because of the lack of specific written procedures to measure the efficiencies. Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs, including government, private, etc.
Do independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality indicate that the program is effective and achieving results? Multiple independent evaluations of program elements indicate effectiveness in meeting user needs. Learn more about detailed assessments. Action taken, but not completed The program has an excellent track record in delivering nonproliferation products and services on schedule and in accordance to customer requirements.
However, the program's performance measures for next-generation technologies are new and as such they have made limited progress in terms of achieving these new measures. Cumulative percentage of progress toward demonstrating the next generation of technologies and methods to detect Plutonium Production activities.
Cumulative percentage of progress toward demonstrating the next generation of technologies and methods to detect Special Nuclear Material movement. Cumulative percentage of progress toward demonstrating the next generation of technologies and methods to detect Uranium production activities.
RD1 If applicable, does the program assess and compare the potential benefits of efforts within the program and if relevant to other efforts in other programs that have similar goals?